On 12/14/06, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 22:35 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 16:42 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > > Look, lets be honest here. Fedora isn't all that great of a distro for a > > stable server. We don't do backports, we play with new technology, we've got > > a fast paced development cycle, etc... Lets not try to be something we > > aren't. > > Actually I find that ideal for a mail server. I _want_ to keep Exim, > SpamAssassin and ClamAV up to date. All my servers run Fedora. As do mine. Fedora as a server is fine for quite a few people and use cases.
Fedora is a good server operating system where you have control of the hardware, only have a certain number of servers you are going to maintain, need cutting edge software, and/or have the staff to upgrade servers on a 6 month cycle. The reason I say a 6 month cycle is that for an enterprise it takes about 2-3 months after an OS before it is usually considered 'known' enough to be put in mass production for servers/desktops. That leaves about 6 (now 10 months) before you have to upgrade again. Doing 1-10 servers by yourself is doable. Trying to do a 500+ servers that some genius thought FC-5 would be perfect on because it had stuff RHEL-4 didnt.. is a nightmare. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
